Archiv verlassen und diese Seite im Standarddesign anzeigen : Physik jenseits Einstein: neue Energie-Masse Äquivalenz, Anti-Schwerkraft, Äther ....
Guten Abend!
Zunächst einmal möchte Ich mag für mein Deutsch zu entschuldigen, da sie nicht die beste möglich sind und aus diesem Grund habe ich die Hilfe eines On-line Übersetzer. Beruflich Ich bin ein Dipl. Elektronikingenieur (Fachhochschule Griechenlands) und zumindest in den letzten 13 Jahren (oder mehr) verbringe ich meine freie Zeit mit der Erforschung (neue Ideen in der Physik).
Unten gibt es einen Link zu meiner Forschung, die tatsächlich gibt, ist eine neue Interpretation der physikalischen Phänomene. Diese Theorie basiert auf der Entdeckung der Reduktion der Lichtgeschwindigkeit (gegenüberliegenden Einsteins zweite Postulierung) mit Abstand von einem feststehenden geladenen Zustand. Die Reduzierung der Geschwindigkeit des Lichts mit Abstand deutet auf eine vollständige formulative Lösung für die folgenden Themen (in Englisch):
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Direkter Link zu meiner Forschungsarbeit:http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/SEPPv7.pdf
Inhalt
Variable E/M wave velocity with distance
Complete Coulomb force Equation
Variable inertial mass and Engineering Equations
New (trapped particle) mass-Energy Equivalence
Charge and Electric Field Screening Equations
Derivation of the Strong Nuclear force between two Protons
Complete Casimir force Equation
Universe properties
Quantization of Space-Time
Disproving the Planck Units and introduction to new values
Aether (Vacuum) concept and Aether's (Vacuum) Tangential Velocity
Dirac's Magnetic Monopole
Complete Electric and Magnetic Field Strength of an elementary Charge
All forms of the Unified Field Force (Electric, Magnetic, Nuclear, Gravitational)
..and much more..
http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/image/Electron%20wih%20two%20photons.jpg
Neue Energie-Masse Äquivalenz
http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/image/obj54geo58shd14pg1p2.png
Äther Tangentialgeschwindigkeit
http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/image/obj98geo80shd3pg1p2.png
Viel Spaß!
Ioannis Xydous
Dipl. Elektronikingenieur (FH)
Schweiz
As somehow expected, the first I run into is an undefined expression:
http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/SEPPv7.pdf p.4/eq(3):
∫∂V is nonsense.
There is e.g. either
∫_∂V dA
denoting a surface integral at ∂V
or
∫ dV
denoting either a (divergent, because there are no limits given) volume integral OR or the full domain integral of the exterior derivative of a differential form "V" (in which case it would be misleadingly labeled)
So what would my reward for reading this paper and guessing what that kind of fantasy formalism is meant to mean?
As somehow expected, the first I run into is an undefined expression:
http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/SEPPv7.pdf p.4/eq(3):
is nonsense.
There is e.g. either
∫_∂V dA
denoting a surface integral at ∂V
or
∫ dV
denoting either a (divergent, because there are no limits given) volume integral OR or the full domain integral of the exterior derivative of a differential form "V" (in which case it would be misleadingly labeled)
So what would my reward for reading this paper and guessing what that kind of fantasy formalism is meant to mean?
Hi Solkar!
The (V) variable corresponds to the final velocity of the photon. And in regards to the indefinite Integral, just check the below link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_integrals
Read exactly where it writes Rational functions. The first indefinite Integral on that paragraph is what you see in the equation where there I use (V) as velocity of the photon and not as volume. I thought that it was pretty clear of what we are talking about there since the equation (3) is derived by the Energy equivalence as seen in eq. (2): The gamma photon interacts with the field of the heavy nucleus (momentum absorber). The momentum absorber is not the mass of the nucleus but its field. The gamma photon does not fall upon nucleus but it interacts with its field.
Why do you react so negative?
I just would like to mention that all the equations are very simple and straight as also thoroughly checked.
Your negativity reveals that you are probably related with the physicist profession. I would give you a friendly advice: Just stay open to new interpretations and possibilities and the reward will come when you read the entire paper and you give some time to think.
Kind Regards
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Switzerland
P.S. If you think that it does not worth my paper to be read, then just do not read it.
Solkar,
I just forgot something that maybe interests you. The classical radius of the Electron as also the fine structure constant, can be derived directly from Eq. (7) when you set the velocity V=0. This means that both the classical radius and the fine structure constant are results of a zero photon velocity.
Lately, I opened the same thread to other physics forums and those who were involved professionally with physics, they were violently opposing my idea for just one reason: It violates Lorentz covariance as also the second postulate of Einstein (speed of light constancy).
They did not want to hear anything and directly they sent my thread to the trash can. Very scientific approach! Well, people like them will never question established ideas as also physics will stay for another 100 years where it is.
The second postulate of Einstein is wrong as general postulate since they have never made measurements under extreme conditions. Meaning to measure the speed of light within an Electrostatic Field with intensity E>1E15V/m where the speed of light deviates significantly.
According to my research, Einstein is correct when there are not present charges. The Compton Scattering although they use constant speed of light it may work also with reduced speed of light (during the interaction) and it can give the same result. The Compton Scattering is based on the prior and post photon Energy where in both cases the photon is far away from an Electron, meaning that the field of the Electron practically cannot influence the velocity of the photon (so, it is c). If it was possible to measure photon's velocity during the interaction with an Electron, they would find that photon's velocity is reduced as long as the photon travels towards the field of the Electron.
By accepting a constant speed of light on quantum level, you receive the chaotic and complex development of today's physics as result, leading to a path without destination. On the other hand a variable speed of light solve all those great puzzles very clearly, comprehensively and without much effort.
Kind Regards
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Switzerland
...and again...
This expression
∫∂V
used at http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/SEPPv7.pdf p.4/eq(3) is utter nonsense.
...and again...
So what would my reward for reading this paper and guessing what that kind of fantasy formalism is meant to mean?
So what would my reward for reading this paper and guessing what that kind of fantasy formalism is meant to mean?
Nothing....
...and again...
This expression
used at http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/SEPPv7.pdf p.4/eq(3) is utter nonsense.
...and again...
So what would my reward for reading this paper and guessing what that kind of fantasy formalism is meant to mean?
The expression is very correct (we speak about velocity do not forget that) and about the indefinite integral, I replied you on the previous post.
Well Solkar, people who have their attention to discover errors in a paper and then to address it loudly with the aim to underestimate the effort and the Author himself, they come in the discussion forum with prejudices.
Your first word "..As somehow expected, .." reveal your intentions and prejudices. I would not like to expand on this but please, at least do not underestimate my intelligence.
So, from the moment the things are like this, then as I wrote above that if you think that the paper does not worth to be read, do not read it. It is simple as that!
Nothing....
Good Evening JoAx,
My previous post, unfortunately applies to you also. I am not here to fight and to play silly games but I just would like to share my discoveries. If they are wrong or not, they cannot be judge by such kind of responses of yours since they are not scientific but completely subjective.
The expression is very correct (we speak about velocity do not forget that) and about the indefinite integral, I replied you on the previous post.
So even after I pointed you twice to the fact that you use a partial symbol "∂" instead of a latin "d" in that integrand, you don't get that.
Very well.
It's quite a motivating to know that the author of a paper targeting the most complicated physical topics is not fluent in basic calculus.
...and again:
What would be my reward for reading this paper and guessing what that kind of fantasy formalism is meant to mean?
Good Evening JoAx,
My previous post, unfortunately applies to you also. I am not here to fight and to play silly games but I just would like to share my discoveries. If they are wrong or not, they cannot be judge by such kind of responses of yours since they are not scientific but completely subjective.
Dear Ioannis,
I agree with you and your impression of the partially very disrespectful way to discuss.
I can not make any statement about the scientific content oft your paper.
Best regards
Slash
...and again:
What would be my reward for reading this paper and guessing what that kind of fantasy formalism is meant to mean?
Die ständige, fast schon nötigende Wiederholung erinnert mich an Samuel L. Jackson alias Jules Winnfield von Pulp Fiction.
Starke Leistung!
So even after I pointed you twice to the fact that you use a partial symbol "∂" instead of a latin "d" in that integrand, you don't get that.
Very well.
It's quite a motivating to know that the author of a paper targeting the most complicated physical topics is not fluent in basic calculus.
...and again:
What would be my reward for reading this paper and guessing what that kind of fantasy formalism is meant to mean?
OK, Solkar, you are right about it. Just ignore this error since it will not harm the rest of the work. If you continue read on the same page you will see that it is derived the same equation without the use of the integral. The integrals that follow, they do not have this small mistake.
If you are not motivated to read my work, just do not read it and do not be provocative. I am an Electronic Engineer in profession and not a physicist as also errors are human. Because I want to be honest, high mathematics are not my strength (I left them after finishing the Fachhochschule, 15 years ago).
There are more than 100 equations on my paper and I corrected a lot of mistakes in the past. Well, I missed that what you mentioned.
The rewards come to those who have the intuition, insight and will beyond prejudices to explore new ideas. I believe that you do not belong on this category because you started having as your primary guide, the prejudices.
Dear Ioannis,
I agree with you and your impression of the partially very disrespectful way to discuss.
I can not make any statement about the scientific content oft your paper.
Best regards
Slash
Thanks for your comment, really appreciated!
If you continue read on the same page you will see that it is derived the same equation without the use of the integral. The integrals that follow, they do not have this small mistake.
OK, let's talk about significance of mistakes - is it also insignificant for the validity of your theory that photons are uncharged?
OK, let's talk about significance of mistakes - is it also insignificant for the validity of your theory that photons are uncharged?
If I understood correctly, you mean that photons are uncharged. Of course they are uncharged and they additionally do not have mass. I do not write something different in regard to this. Eq. (3) and Eq.(7) resulted from the interaction of photon radiation with the Electric field of the stationary charge.
The formulations are very simple and clear.
Oh I see - so we consider this equality of [Xyd13/eq(3)
∆E_γ = ∆E_Field
insignificant as well, or do we?
Ioannis, why don't you simply emphasize (eg. by boldface), which parts of [Xyd13] are meant to be taken serious and which are to be disregarded?
[Xyd13]Ioannis Xydous. The secret of the Electron-Positron pair. v7.0 13.03.2013 20:31,
http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/SEPPv7.pdf
Oh I see - so we consider this equality of [Xyd13/eq(3)
insignificant as well, or do we?
Ioannis, why don't you simply emphasize (eg. by boldface), which parts of [Xyd13] are meant to be taken serious and which are to be disregarded?
[Xyd13]Ioannis Xydous. The secret of the Electron-Positron pair. v7.0 13.03.2013 20:31,
http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/SEPPv7.pdf
This applies only for you: discard the entire content of the paper because it does not worth to be read. Are you happy now?
I do not have any time and interest to continue such kind of conversations since they are pointless.
Put it this way:
Because you wrongfully assume neutral photons interact with Coulomb fields like charged particles in your ansatz for [Xyg13], your whole ansatz is plainly wrong, thus your paper [Xyg13] is null and void.
☐
Put it this way:
Because you wrongfully assume neutral photons interact with Coulomb fields like charged particles in your ansatz for [Xyg13], your whole ansatz is plainly wrong, thus your paper [Xyg13] is null and void.
☐
We will see about who is void and null. In the meantime, could you please provide your opinion about the below:
We have a propagating photon with an exact threshold energy 1.022MeV which travels near a heavy nucleus (acting as momentum absorber). At a specific moment the photon energy is transformed to an Electron-Positron pair. I would like to have your opinion (all those who are interested) in regards to what kind of interaction we have on this particular situation:
i) Does the photon fall upon the nucleus? Obviously NO due to three reasons. First the photon Energy is very small and cannot trigger a photo-fission process. Secondly, the photo-fission process has nothing to do with the pair creation phenomenon. Third, the only outcome in the pair production process is the Electron-Positron pair. (see Eq. (1))
ii) Today's Physics supports that the heavy nucleus due to its mass is used as momentum absorber (which actually this is equal to the definition of a blocked nucleus deflection/scattering) that will actually will enable the photon to decay to an Electron-Positron pair by conserving the Energy and momentum, simultaneously. If the statement (i) is valid then the mass of the nucleus (only the mass property) is not involved in the process and it does not make sense the definition of nucleus mass (only the mass property) as momentum absorber because actually the photon does not fall upon nucleus.
iii) Then, if the above two statements are valid, what kind of interaction takes place?
We have a propagating photon with an exact threshold energy 1.022MeV which travels near a heavy nucleus (acting as momentum absorber). At a specific moment the photon energy is transformed to an Electron-Positron pair. I would like to have your opinion (all those who are interested) in regards to what kind of interaction we have on this particular situation:
How does that negate the point, Solkar spoke about?
Your ansatz is wrong in any way. That's all.
How does that negate the point, Solkar spoke about?
Your ansatz is wrong in any way. That's all.
And who is Solkar, the GOD. Just for your information:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6165v1.pdf
This paper discusses the possibility of a fluctuating speed of light in the vacuum. His approach is similar to what I introduce in my paper. If you ever give time to read the above paper, then probably I will present here where the similarities are found between the above and my paper.
I do not claim that everything is correct in my paper but at least they require serious consideration.
All the essence of my work is found on those simple arguments of my previous post in regards to what kind of interaction takes place.
If for you, "That is all", then why did you spend time to reply from the moment that all these are "nonsense" according to you? The answer is simple: Prejudices on every level, unfortunately.
I have to repeat myself that I joined this forum to share and to discuss but not to fight and spend my time in pointless conversation filled with prejudices and negativity. It is your call!
And who is Solkar, the GOD.
Of cause not. It just make no sens, what you do.
Just for your information:
Oh yes! That says much. I've almost knew about it. And that:
http://motls.blogspot.de/2013/03/speed-of-light-is-variable-only-in-junk.html
is just for your information.
The only problem is that the "research" is pure crackpottery.
but at least they require serious consideration.
No. You better spend the next 13 years for learning.
If for you, "That is all", then why did you spend time to reply from the moment that all these are "nonsense" according to you?
For people who may think your paper may be right some way - loose this illusion.
I have to repeat myself that I joined this forum to share and to discuss but not to fight and spend my time in pointless conversation filled with prejudices and negativity. It is your call!
Right. If you're not willing to discuss the obvious flaws in your paper, you're wrong here.
Your attitude definitely needs correction. Try to answer legit questions without getting personal. Soon.
Right. If you're not willing to discuss the obvious flaws in your paper, you're wrong here.
Your attitude definitely needs correction. Try to answer legit questions without getting personal. Soon.
You speak about my attitude but you did not say a word about Solkar who provoked the discussion by saying "As expected....". Meaning it was expected that you are wrong because I am who I am, with other words.
I have already answer the questions on my thread and I have set already a question to the members which they do not seem to be engaged. Is it my fault?
Ich, you are the moderator but please judge equally. I respond to those with the same way they respond to me, because I never like people coming for discussion and having prejudices (I do not want to expand on this since it is on every level and beyond physics as also it will not be mentioned with words for obvious reasons). I suppose none like this too.
It is in your power to close my thread, I will not stop you.
Kind Regards
Ioannis
Electronic Engineer
Switzerland
JoAx,
If the refernce link I gave you cannot be taken seriously, then look at this alternative journal:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7
Regards
Ioannis
If the refernce link I gave you cannot be taken seriously, then look at this alternative journal:
It's all about the same, Ioannis.
Just read my Link. ;)
But I think it will not move you an inch. :(
You speak about my attitude but you did not say a word about Solkar who provoked the discussion by saying "As expected....".
I'm so sorry...
How DARE I doubt the quality of a 43 pgs paper intended to solve almost any open question of contemporary physics
Inhalt
Variable E/M wave velocity with distance
Complete Coulomb force Equation
Variable inertial mass and Engineering Equations
New (trapped particle) mass-Energy Equivalence
Charge and Electric Field Screening Equations
Derivation of the Strong Nuclear force between two Protons
Complete Casimir force Equation
Universe properties
Quantization of Space-Time
Disproving the Planck Units and introduction to new values
Aether (Vacuum) concept and Aether's (Vacuum) Tangential Velocity
Dirac's Magnetic Monopole
Complete Electric and Magnetic Field Strength of an elementary Charge
All forms of the Unified Field Force (Electric, Magnetic, Nuclear, Gravitational)
..and much more..
How DARE I?
[QUOTE=Solkar;72035]I'm so sorry...
How DARE I doubt the quality of a 43 pgs paper intended to solve almost any open question of contemporary physics
Well maybe it is simpler than most people think!
OK Solkar,
Since they are so disturbing those minor errors on my paper for you, please start reading from page 4 just at the up and right part of it. There you may find an alternative and easier presentation of the idea that gives the same result as on the other half page on the left.
Besides that, the question remains in regards to what kind of interaction takes place between the gamma photon and the nucleus. Only then you probably may see of what I am talking about. As I mentioned in a previous post, from eq.(7) of my paper, it results the classical electron radius and the fine structure constant, something that at least myself, I find very serious.
The classical electron radius and the fine structure constant can be derived when we set eq.(7) with V=0. Just think about it!
You speak about my attitude but you did not say a word about Solkar who provoked the discussion by saying "As expected....". Meaning it was expected that you are wrong because I am who I am, with other words.
I beg your pardon? An "Electronics Engineer" publishing revolutionary work on modern physics in an internet forum most certainly evokes certain expectations. And to be honest, you do deliver, don't you?
Noboby expects anything useful, especially as we have this type of publication here regularly. Get over it, that's how it is. Your only chance is to convince with your arguments, you can't blame the reader for not enthusiasticlly embracing your work.
It is in your power to close my thread, I will not stop you.
I see no reason to close this thread if you stop commenting on real or imagined personal characteristics of special forum users or physicists in general, and start discussing your work, including its flaws. I expect that's what you're here for anyway?
Since they are so disturbing those minor errors on my paper for you, The error of that ansatz is by far not an error of "minor" significance.
please start reading from page 4 just at the up and right part of it. There you may find an alternative and easier presentation of the idea that gives the same result as on the other half page on the left.
...an alternative using eq(3), resulting from a wrong ansatz, for the last equality of eq(4.1)?
Yes, of course! Makes perfect sense...
The error of that ansatz is by far not an error of "minor" significance.
...an alternative using eq(3), resulting from a wrong ansatz, for the last equality of eq(4.1)?
Yes, of course! Makes perfect sense...
I do not see where is your point. I suppose that you read the text before.
The error of that ansatz is by far not an error of "minor" significance.
...an alternative using eq(3), resulting from a wrong ansatz, for the last equality of eq(4.1)?
Yes, of course! Makes perfect sense...
Hi Solkar!
You are very correct about the ansatz and I apologize for this. I just updated my document on this specific point and now looks better (I hope). I congratulate you because you are very observative as also more capable in mathematics than me. Just to be honest, mathematics is not my strength and not my hobby. I struggled a lot until to bring my paper on the current form since I left mathematics (differential equations, Fourier transformations, e.t.c) some 15 years ago during the studies on the fachhochschule. Moreover, you notice in my paper simple expressions (classical physics) and only a couple of integrals. If I would like to develop this idea with the today trends of Quantum Physics, it would be impossible because I am not aware and currently (as also I am not planning to learn them because it is simply too late for me and I have other interests) not capable of processing advanced mathematics.
I am not expecting from the above to correct my credibility or to see some kind of approval since the subject is very challenging for the foundations of physics. Actually, the use of classical physics to solve Quantum Mechanical phenomena, looks like to most (or all of them) of the specialists on the field as a joke. In any case, my work is a moment of inspiration and is accessible to everyone. The only pre-requirement is a Gymnasium education, knowing the basic in physics as also to have an exploration interest.
My apologies for my behavior to everyone and I wish to all of you a nice exploration in whatever you are up to!
Kind Regards
Ioannis Xydous
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
SEPPv7: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/SEPPv7.pdf
Switzerland
P.S. Although I sent my work to more than 1000 scientists worldwide (ESA, NASA, CERN, Max Planck Institute in Germany, Research institutes in EU, USA, Russia, e.t.c), I never received a reply and as it looks like I will never receive.
Probably on this weekend when I have some time, I will present some indications as also some thought experiments where according to my opinion the mainstream physics overlooked a very critical subject (the speed of light constancy is actually not constant on quantum level).
An example (thought experiment) is the Compton Scattering where I may show you with formulations that it gives the same results when we use reduced velocity of light for the scattered photon.
Kind Regards
Ioannis Xydous
I just updated my document on this specific point and now looks better (I hope).
Hi Ioannis!
Got a link to the updated document?
This
SEPPv7: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/SEPPv7.pdf
is, as the pdf-name implies, still v7 as of 13.03.2013 20:31.
Best regards, Solkar
Hi Ioannis!
Got a link to the updated document?
This
is, as the pdf-name implies, still v7 as of 13.03.2013 20:31.
Best regards, Solkar
Hi Solkar!
The SEPPv7.pdf on the web site now is exactly the same version (v7) as also with the same date and time but with corrected the annoying mistake on page 4. This stupid mistake should not be there from the beginning where I find the creation of a new version (v8) unnecessary (due to page 4).
Thanks again and have a nice weekend!
Ioannis
P.S. Only when I make some major corrections or changes on the document, I create a new version. For example, from version (v6) to version (v7), I removed 20 pages with more questionable content (like neutrinos and other stuff). Neutrinos as also Quarks will be a future subject but completely separate papers.
http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/ForumImages/Compton%20Scattering.jpg
Hi everybody!
On the above we see the known Compton Scattering formulations (on the left) and the Compton Scattering based on the reduction of the speed of light with distance or photon Energy (on the right).
The header "After the Interaction" means that we measure the scattering angle after the interaction where the photon is far away from Electron's Field and speed of light is again constant (c). The header "During the Interaction" has the meaning that the scattering angle starts to be developed during the interaction with Electron's field where the speed of light reduces as long as the photon is being found within Electron's field.
The known Compton Scattering interpretation is based on the collision of photon with electron's mass. The new interpretation (according to my theory) is that the photon interacts with the Electric Field of the Electron where the reduction of the speed of light cause a momentum transfer to the Electron.
My theory is based on the following postulate: When a photon travels inside the field of a charged particle, the photon velocity reduces by keeping its wavelength invariable.
As you may notice both approaches give the same exiting frequency for the scattered photon. When I presented this argument to another forum, they told me (some of them where physicists) that is a completely wrong approach even if it gives the same result. The main reason according to them was that it violates Lorentz covariance as also Maxwell Equations where the speed of light is constant according to Einstein's second postulate.
OK, I understand this but what I presented above gives me the right to conclude the following according to the findings of my work: The speed of light has never been attempted to be measured under extreme conditions (Efield>1E15 V/m) where then it starts to be reduced significantly.
What do you think about all the above?
Regards
Ioannis
Hi Solkar!The SEPPv7.pdf on the web site now is exactly the same version (v7) as also with the same date and time but with corrected the annoying mistake on page 4. This stupid mistake should not be there from the beginning where I find the creation of a new version (v8) unnecessary (due to page 4).
Ioannis,
As fas I see, you only fixed the "∂" issue.
But your very ansatz, which had already been marked wrongful, still remains.
Regards, Solkar
Ioannis,
As fas I see, you only fixed the "∂" issue.
But your very ansatz, which had already been marked wrongful, still remains.
Regards, Solkar
Please could you be more specific because I really do not understand.
Regards
Ioannis
And again...
Because you wrongfully assume neutral photons interact with Coulomb fields like charged particles in your ansatz for [Xyg13], your whole ansatz is plainly wrong, thus your paper [Xyg13] is null and void.
☐
And again...
Zitat von Solkar Beitrag anzeigen
Because you wrongfully assume neutral photons interact with Coulomb fields like charged particles in your ansatz for [Xyg13], your whole ansatz is plainly wrong, thus your paper [Xyg13] is null and void.
☐
Now I understand what you mean. My ansatz is based exactly on the interaction between neutral photons (otherwise in pair production we would not have charge conservation) and the Electric Field (>1E15V/m) of the charge. I cannot remove the basic idea where my entire paper is founded.
As I already mentioned on post #37, members of another forum (many of them they were physicists) they told me exactly the same: My idea violates Lorentz covariance and Maxwell Equations. They claimed that the speed of light is constant and indepedent of the presence of background fields.
My argument against this is the following: When photons travel in the vacuum absence of charged matter or they are found in very large distance from a charge, photon's velocity is constant and equals to c (see Eq. (7) on my paper). When photons start to interact with charged matter, the reduction of the speed of light will be always evident inside charge's field.
As I write on post #37, the mainstream physics never attempted to measure the speed of light within a strong Electrostatic Field with intensity more than 1E15 V/m (although evident in all photon interactions with matter in nature).This was the reason according to my opinion that Quantum Physics was developed under a wrong postulate (for the Quantum World) and became so complex and almost impossible to follow as also leads to a futile path.
The post #37 requires some serious attention (using Compton's formulations and not my own, which is the accepted science today ) and it is a key argument against Einstein's second postulate (for the Quantum World). What do you think?
Regards
Ioannis Xydous
P.S.1 Unfortunately, our Science on planet Earth is being found 100 years, off course. Normally, we should have already Antigravitational Vehicles and Perpetual Machines base on the variable Inertia, since the beginning of the previous century.
P.S.2 Do not forget that Science was never developed in a clear and free manner, at those times as also in our times. Science was always directed by people with power, prestige, political and business interests.
Normally, we should have already Antigravitational Vehicles and Perpetual Machines base on the variable Inertia, since the beginning of the previous century.
At first i read this ment to be ironic, but i fear, i was wrong:
P.S.2 Do not forget that Science was never developed in a clear and free manner, at those times as also in our times. Science was always directed by people with power, prestige, political and business interests.
I think, your touchdown here, in this board, was a mistake.
At first i read this ment to be ironic, but i fear, i was wrong:
I think, your touchdown here, in this board, was a mistake.
Hi Jogi!
I suppose the expression of free opinions is allowed everywhere even if mainstream science do not accept them. I chose to open my thread in the "Theorien jenseits der Standardphysik" because I have created my own theory upon how some phenomena may be interpreted. Is that wrong? If you think I should not be here, then the section "Theorien jenseits der Standardphysik" does not have a meaning to exist. The same was done recently by another forum, where they decided theirselves to remove the section "Alternate ideas and Hypotheses" just like that. What do you understand about this? Very "democratic" and in the name of Science indeed!
How Science can be developed further if none will ever question established ideas?
By mentioning the words power, prestige, political and business interests, you must not go so far. An example is the Electric Vehicles and the Photo-voltaics. Although they were developed decades ago, they were not financed to go a step further. The Oil industry (politics, prestige, power, business) plays a very important role ("dark") behind this and everyone knows it.
If you think (as moderator) that my thread must be locked because of the above reasons and my previous arguments, then just do it. I have no problem!
In any case, thank you and all members for the cosversation so far.
Kind Regards and Best Wishes
Ioannis Xydous
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Paper: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/SEPPv7.pdf
Switzerland
How Science can be developed further if none will ever question established ideas?
Questioning is okay, developement is okay, but allegeing we could have antgravitational drived vehicles is... sorry... bull****.
By mentioning the words power, prestige, political and business interests, you must not go so far. An example is the Electric Vehicles and the Photo-voltaics. Although they were developed decades ago, they were not financed to go a step further.
May i invite you to my home, where you can see the opposite?
My car runs by solar electricity, although you are not completely wrong with this:
The Oil industry (politics, prestige, power, business) plays a very important role ("dark") behind this and everyone knows it.
:)
Questioning is okay, developement is okay, but allegeing we could have antgravitational drived vehicles is... sorry... bull****.
May i invite you to my home, where you can see the opposite?
My car runs by solar electricity, although you are not completely wrong with this:
:)
Hi Jogi!
Well I will give you a glimpse of the future that we should have already developed. Below there is a link with my experiment. This experiment could be called a very primitive Warp Drive (nothing to do with the practically impossible Alcuberrie Drive):
http://www.youtube.com/user/AetherControl
If you go to my first post, you will read of what I am talking as also I speak about technological applications with Engineering Equations. The experiment above is described with all theoretical (equations and calculations) and technical details in my paper:
http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/SEPPv7.pdf
The above links can be found also on my web site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/, in case you are interested to explore the experimental part which actually is relative easy (if you have the equipment) but not so easy to control due to the variable E/M characteristics of the ferromagnetic core.
When I speak about Antigravitational vehicles, I know very well of what I am speaking. Thinking in terms of mainstream physics, it is impossible as also it is considered as a joke.
Just forget the technological applications for the moment since we have not covered the most important issue, the ansatz where my theory is based.
Post #37 is the challenge and about the rest if we have time (and we are allowed), we will process them later.
Just for the record, I am not the only who speaks about Gravity Control (Antigravity and stuff). For your info there is a known Brazilian Professor where the last 13 years he has a web site and a theory based on the existence of Gravitational Mass: http://www.frandeaquino.org/
Of course he will be taken more seriously than me, because he is a professional Scientist even with his challenging theory.
Kind Regards
Ioannis Xydous
Hi everybody!
Below you have the chance to experience a live experiment that take place in the outer Van Outer where the Electron flux (>0.8MeV) drops when the Kp Index varies. According to the findings of my theory: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
this occurs because of the inertial mass reduction of particles when they are trapped within a Standing Wave. Scroll down the main web page and you will see the graph with the prediction.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/Electron.gif
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/Kp.gif
For once more, I will repeat that unexpected effects like rapid acceleration, Invisibility (zero Inertial Mass) and Antigravity occur above our heads (Van Allen Belt) the last million of years.
http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/image/obj54geo58shd14pg1p2.png
vBulletin® v3.8.8, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.